Running Head: OPTION 1 INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS

An Instructional Model for English Language Learners

to Reduce Cognitive, Culture, Learning, and Language Load

Terri Krause

Purdue University

AN INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS TO REDUCE LOAD 2

An Instructional Model for English Language Learners

to Reduce Cognitive, Culture, Learning, and Language Load

In this rapidly changing informational environment, where technological capabilities and social

opportunities far exceed the human capacity to fully engage, pedagogy is attempting to keep up

with the changes in an increasingly diverse classroom environment where learner experience,

skills, and modes of learning are increasingly disparate. While these conditions present a serious

challenge for educators and traditionally underserved populations, ELL (English Language

Learners) students are hardest hit. According to Meyer (2001), rather than simply dealing with

issues of cognitive load; culture load, language load and learning load also present instructional

considerations for the English language learner that must be addressed if learning is to “be

meaningful” (p. 229). A comprehensive instructional model is needed that creates a simple

replicable environment that will allow ELL students to participate in the process of rapidly

generating and acquiring underlying schema which can be cataloged in an organized culturally

relevant informational reservoir, thereby reducing cognitive load and accelerating their learning

process. In this paper, I will give a brief overview of the contribution of relevant learning

theories and methodologies to the current ELL environment and how each contributes (if at all)

to cognitive load; b) propose an instructional model that addresses the specific issues English

learners face; c) and give an example of the model in use.

Literature Review

Learning Theories, ELL and Cognitive Load

Behaviorism. B.F. Skinner’s behaviorist concepts and methods of instruction have been

used successfully for particular types of passive human learning where the focus is on

performance of a task manifesting in simple responses to stimuli (Ertmer and Newby, 1993).

AN INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS TO REDUCE LOAD 3

This theory ignores meaning, understanding, and underlying cognitive processes. Rather, tasks

are presented, rewards are implemented, and behavior is repeated until consistent performance is

achieved. Skinner, in his book Verbal Behavior, contended that language could be approached in

the same way that behaviorism dealt with other complex processes such as dancing—by using

the concept of chaining simple behaviors together (Driscoll, M.P., 2005, p. 64). Today, ELL

students are often taught vocabulary utilizing behaviorist methods of affirmation rewards for rote

memorization when the students successful pair a word with its definition. While this may not

unduly increase cognitive load in the early grades, the inadequacies of the method creates results

that will later be seen to contribute significantly to cognitive, language and learning load as

learning tasks increase in complexity.

Cognitivism. Unlike the behaviorists, the cognitivists did recognize the role of the

learner as an active agent in the learning process. The cognitivist also acknowledges the

existence and role of the mind (cognition) as it interacts with sensory information resulting from

the learner’s participation in the environment. Atkinson and Shiffin (1986) introduced memory

into the equation, proposing the flow of information from sensory input to sensory memory to

working/short-term and finally long-term memory (as cited in Driscoll, 2005, pp. 74-75). Key to

successful instructional design for the cognitivist is the role and importance of automaticity of

information, tasks and processes. This concept of automaticity is closely tied to cognitive load—

“gradually, they (tasks) become more automated, freeing cognitive resources for other activities”

(Sweller 1994). In their 1974 study, LaBerge and Samuels concluded that: “decoding words

should be so automatic…readers.. can concentrate their attention on comprehending the meaning

…” (as cited in Driscoll, 2005, p. 81). For the English learner, learning in a CIP environment

looks much the same as in a behaviorist classroom—days filled with extensive practice sessions

AN INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS TO REDUCE LOAD 4

with corrective feedback (Ertmer and Newby, 1993, p. 58). The implications of this are many. Of

chief importance is the difficulty in achieving useful automaticity when the contextual and

cultural factors necessary to the assignment of meaning to words and concepts is absent from the

learning task. Students may have no known context in which to place the word and may

therefore be unable to retrieve and or use it when called to do so.

Constructivism. The objectivist view was losing ground and the passive role of the

individual was changing. In 1991, Jonassen clarified the nature of the shift to the individual

creating meaning from his/her experiences (p. 10). Constructivists cite instructional goals of

higher level reasoning, critical thinking, and cognitive flexibility (Driscoll, 2005, p. 402) and

instructional methodologies that include complex, real-world environments requiring that

learners develop problem solving skills assisted by extensive scaffolding. Because the learner is

steering his/her learning, the instructional goals are negotiated rather than imposed as

instructor/teacher objectives (Jonassen, 1991); but, from an ELL perspective this raises concerns

about the level of cognitive load. “Despite the alleged advantages of unguided environments…

cognitive load theory suggests that the free exploration of a highly complex environment may

generate a heavy working memory load that is detrimental to learning” (Kirscher, Sweller and

Clark, 2006). There must be a better solution.

Discussion

A New Instructional Model for ELL

In an effort to address the issues of cognitive, culture, language and learning load

experienced by English learners, and after a review of some of the existing instructional models,

I have constructed a preliminary model based on several assumptions which follow.

AN INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS TO REDUCE LOAD 5

Role of Technology: In most classrooms and teaching methodologies, the role of teacher

is shifting and technology is no longer optional. Krashen (1981) reminds us that “for more than a

decade English learners have been told that their role in the second language acquisition process

is a largely passive one…” (p. 228); and, the new instructional theories appear to give the student

a more active role. But, in truth there is little left to chance. Students may choose to watch a

video, push a key or type in a word. But, in most environments, the rest of the process is simply

responding to programming—the computer has replaced the teacher.

The Role of Dialogue. Meyer (2001) in her article on the Barriers to Meaningful

Instruction pointed out what Vygotsky believed to be of critical importance to a child’s language

development: “Through dialogue with adults, children learn to transfer their experiences from

the plane of physical action to that of words, creating ‘verbal thought’” (p. 228). In most

constructivist classrooms and teaching methodologies, Vygotsky’s dialogue is sadly absent.

Paulo Freire also spoke of the importance of dialogue in his book Pedagogy of the

Oppressed (2005): “Dialogue does not represent a somewhat false path....On the contrary,

dialogue characterizes an epistemological relationship. Thus, in this sense, dialogue is a way of

knowing…I engage in dialogue because I recognize the social…character of the process of

knowing. In this sense, dialogue presents itself as an indispensable component of the process of

both learning and knowing” (p. 17). Little time is available in the classroom for dialogue. Yet it

is the way we teach our children—the activity we choose when we interact with friends. A

holistic instructional theory should include planned, intentional dialogue supporting and/or

scaffolding the process; while also imparting meaning and guidance through shared discussion

throughout the learning process.

AN INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS TO REDUCE LOAD 6

Role of the Learner: While I welcome the concept of the learner having an active role, I

am deeply concerned about the impact on the English learners unless they are more deeply

involved in the design process. No one knows better than an English learner what types of

problems are most difficult to understand and master. It is imperative that learners take an active

role in the design of the individual objects in the model.

Role of the Design Facilitator: There is no one better than an English learner who has

successfully bridged the gap to provide expertise and direction to the design process; thus,

providing the cultural context that is critical to the model being relevant, meaningful, and

effective.

Role of the Designer: Gagné’s model of instruction set about to garner the learner’s

attention, create a connection with prior knowledge, and then proceeded to enact a behaviorist

methodology paired with instructional guidance and feedback, expecting retention and transfer.

While Gangé does account for the existence of the whole person; like Bloom, he appears to

address the part(s) separately. The role of the designer is to create an integrated model that

addresses the English learners’ unique needs with cultural and contextual schema to reduce

cognitive, cultural and learning load, with a holistic mindset.

The Model. The model I propose is holistic and based upon the teacher/instructor,

cultural expert, and English learner working together to create learning objects that begin with

minimal structure. These can then be built into complex systems of thought and knowledge.

While we use a form of this in programming (objects, attributes, methods), this instructional

model reverses the process and makes a programming concept concrete. A library of basic

objects would be provided, and the user could discover the characteristics and how to use them

appropriately; changing attributes as scenarios change and become more complex. Each learner

AN INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS TO REDUCE LOAD 7

defined object would be first be conceptualized with real world tools and involve a dialogue with

the instructor and fellow classmates about the attributes, constraints, and methodologies of the

object being developed prior to committing it to an electronic interface. Students would actively

participate, giving cognitive processes physical context. Below is an example of the process

applied to a problem one of my students discussed with me this week. We dialogued to clarify,

added context, and related the problem to her gaming culture.

CD: Creative Dialogue (Planning/Parsing/Questioning)

CR: Create Relevance (Add Context/Culture)

CA: Combine and Apply (Ask—These Together?)

CP: Contrast and Personalize (Opposite Viewpoint?)

CE: Conclude and Evaluate (Choose/Test)

Table 1 Schematic of Krause Theory of Instruction

Conclusion

English learners daily face many challenges. They live their lives as two people—one

who is Hispanic and speaks and thinks in Spanish at home with family and friends; and, the

other, who is American and expected to speak, act and think like it when at school. Our current

instructional design fails to address English learners’ unique needs, produces unnecessary

cognitive load, and fails to provide cultural context and adequate (schema) support for English

learners to be successful. A new model is needed if we hope to see every student given the

chance to be successful.

AN INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS TO REDUCE LOAD 8

References

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1937-8327.1993.tb00605.x

Freire, P., Ramos, M. B., & Macedo, D. P. (n.d.). Pedagogy of the oppressed 2005. 10.1007/BF02296434

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical

paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14. doi: Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction

does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discover, problem-based, perperiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

Meyer, L. M. (2000). Barriers to meaningful instruction for English learners. Theory Into Practice, 39(4), 228-236. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip3904_6

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295-312. doi: 10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5

.